What can be done to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms easily?

[Cherryspringer]

criminals

I don't agree. Guns are simply tools. would you worry about buying a hammer that had been owned by a criminal. I'm sure no one would want to, but a hammer could be used as a murder weapon also and no one is wanting to control the sale of hammers or trace their ownership. You see where I'm going with this, guns dont kill people or hold up liquor stores. Criminals do. And if we all had guns, they would probably stop doing it.

 

[CarmelHP]

There are professional gun runners who buy in Florida, Indiana, Ohio and other free states and transport their guns to DC, NYC and Chicago to sell for a healthy and illlegal profit. Here is where the focus should lie. Catching and stopping the people who are supplying guns to gangs and robbers etc.

You mean like Eric Holder?

 

[Shootsforfun]

Enforcement of Current Laws, Lets stop wasting time on New laws and spend some time enforceing the ones that we already have....It was pointed out by Ted Nugent that the shooter at Sandy Hook broke 41 laws does anyone think the 42nd law would have prevented it....Just my 2 cents.

 

[arthrimus]

Other: Felons have the right to own guns. You be the judge of a potential buyer's character, and act accordingly. Abolish FFLs and NICS background checks.

I said it before in another thread about this, but I think it bears repeating here.

If you believe that the right to defend one's life and property is in fact a God given, natural right, then you must believe that it is a right that belongs to ALL men, including felons. Why would a person who has committed a crime in the past, and paid the price deemed appropriate by the legal system for their crime, not be granted the same rights as you or I? Is it not the goal of our correctional system to rehabilitate these criminals, and help them to become productive components of society once more? How can we expect that to work if we treat them as less than men once they're out again?

To deny a man his natural rights on any basis is to classify him as sub-human. Therefore if things are as they should be, and no man is denied his God given rights, then a background check would be an exercise in futility at best, given that nothing that it could yield would have any effect on the legality of the sale.

If you believe that disarming past criminals is acceptable based on the notion that they are likely to commit crimes again and shouldn't be allowed to own a gun with which to commit them, then your arguments are as ignorant as the arguments presented by those who wish to take away our ability to defend ourselves. People intent on committing gun crimes will obtain a gun through illegal means if no legal option is available to them. Telling the felon that he can't legally own a gun for fear that he might use it to commit crimes again is like... telling a felon that he can't LEGALLY own a gun for fear that he might use it to commit crimes again. Sorry, I don't have anything to compare it to, but it's just so damned self explanatory already.

You can't engage in preemptive justice. These are laws of aggression, that assume guilt and restrict freedom based on that assumption. It's just as wrong to do it to a felon as it is to a law abiding citizen.

 

[Bill of Rights]

And rape victims should have locked up their vaginas.

Not all rape victims have those.

 

[CarmelHP]

[STRIKE][/STRIKE]

Not all rape victims have those.

...but you get the idea.

 

[5.56'aholic]

well, since the definition of a criminal is defined as someone who breaks the law, the only rational way to keep firearms out of criminals' hands are to decriminalize the possession of firearms.

criminals always break the law by definition.

 

[richardraw316]

i have a not so popular idea.
start by obtaining you licence. indiana puts an endorcement on you drivers license like CCW, or Carry License. something like that. ten you buy a gun from a ffl or a private sale and all you have to show is your license. it has your picture on it. it would be harder to counterfeit than the pink piece of paper. and it would work at gun shows as well.
for the last part, total agreeance here. you should be able to buy a nfa item with the background check they do in store or the one you went through to get your permit in the first place. they card idea should work for that as well.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Since most of the guns criminals have were stolen, if you don't securely lock up ALL of your guns that aren't under your DIRECT control, YOU are part of the problem.

SOMEBODY made their guns easy to steal, or they wouldn't have them.

Explain again please how 'locking up' your guns renders them inaccessible to criminals.

 

[drrun]

You simply cannot make laws because people break them...I know this sounds simple but it applies to every level of leadership, both private and public.

 

[j706]

Put the criminals in prison. There's almost no firearms there at all.

Nuff said^^^^ And it really is that simple. In reality the US government as well as the state do not lock up people for gun crimes at the rate they should, and for the ones they do they get little time. Criminals arent worried because they know to run their case to trial so they get a swearheart plea agreement to avoid trial.

 

[ModernGunner]

John Hopkins or not, that report is erroneous from the first sentence, so it has ZERO validity. Just another anti-gunner propaganda piece, nothing more.

Sure, the Seller should take due care to whom he's selling a weapon. And, fine if they wanna make folks accountable for that.

Let's start with mandatory term limits for politicians and other elected positions, including Judges. 8 years total. No jumping from position to position, or community to community. They get 8 years and then out they go. NO appointed and / or permanent positions, including SCOTUS. 8 years.

As some others noted, start REALLY cracking down on crimes. Someone convicted of using a gun to perpetrate a crime? Say, a mandatory 20 years. And mandatory MEANS 'mandatory'. No plea bargains, no time reduction for 'good behavior', no early parole nothing.

Convicted and someone was injured in that crime? Mandatory life sentence. And again, that means no parole.

Convicted and someone was killed in that crime? Mandatory death sentence. No automatic appeal, and requested appeals are limited to ONE. Their attorney gets ONE bite at the apple, and has 1 year, (365 days) from the date of convict, to make that appeal. The decision MUST be made within 15 months of conviction. Appeal fails? That death sentence is executed immediately at that point.

That will move the system a long much, much, MUCH faster. And force those lazy-azzes in the court system to be on the ball, as well. And if the defense attorney loses, say 10 in a row? Disbarred permanently. If he / she is that bad of a lawyer, the system doesn't need them, anyway.

Convicted of a major felony, violent or non-violent? Lose their right to gun possession permanently. Screw that 'they have the RIGHT!' malarkey. They gave up that right when they perpetrated a felony. And they lose that right in EVERY State, not just the State of conviction.

If they don't like those rules, how about NOT committing a crime. I know people, and you do too, that have went their entire lives and NEVER perpetrated a felony. So, I have zero sympathy for those that CHOOSE to do so.

For those 'bleeding hearts' out there it probably sounds like we're not giving the criminal much of a 'second chance'. That's TRUE. But, did he / she give his / her VICTIMS a 'second chance' NOT to be victimized? Not in a single case. So, the felon GETS the same 'second chance' he / she GAVE. That's fair.

Now, start building those prisons!

 

[gungirl65]

Build gallows not prisons, they require much less wood.

 

[Smokepole]

I voted OTHER/BACON. My suggestion is to make NICS checks available FREE to the conscientious individuals that wish to take advantage of them when privately selling arms.

 

[HenryWallace]

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. Simple. You will not stop a criminal that has intent to kill because they will do so OUT SIDE THE LAW anyways.
If we had the RIGHT to do what our God Given Rights said that we're supposed to have, then none of this would even matter, We'd be Back In Control of this run a muck Gov. already.
We're so afraid to run things ourselves, that we let the Fed Gov give guns to Mexico, know who did it, know why they did it, and they still are in charge of us... No heads Roll.
We're so afraid to run our own finances that we let Wall Street run us into the ground and create a bubble in housing, maliciously manipulate our stocks and then we bail them out.
We allow Gov. to put us into war by using False Flag attacks like the Gulf of Tonkin to throw us into an un-winnable war, drug up our vets, and forget them when they come home defeated... No one to blame?

 

[Trooper]

We could go back to human sacrifice as the ancients did. On Earth Day take all of the criminals out and rip out their hearts, sacrificing their blood to the Great Mother. Maybe even have "games" of combat in which criminals fight each other to the death. For the worst we could nail them to a post so that they die slowly over three days.

In other words recreate ancient Rome....

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

The entire premise of your poll is flawed. Despite what you have heard all your life from advocates of gun control, these types of laws have never been intended to prevent criminals from getting guns, or even to "make it harder for criminals to get guns".

These kinds of regulations are always; have always been about keeping law-abiding people from getting guns and making it harder for law-abiding people to get guns. And about making criminals out of law-abiding people who didn't follow these kinds of BS regulations because they were either too complicated, too confusing, too ambiguous, or too restrictive.

For some reason, there is an instinct in some people that, when they can't sufficiently smack down the people they want (criminals), they automatically look around for someone else to smack down (law-abiding citizens).

Really, think about it. Let's say your proposed rules are put in place (pick one). Assuming that they are enforced, how many criminals would be penalized (I mean over and above what they deserve for whatever crime they commit that caused them to be caught) verses how many law-abiding citizens that would be penalized for making some kind of mistake, or didn't recognize a phony LTCH card or something.

 

[Trooper]

The entire premise of your poll is flawed. Despite what you have heard all your life from advocates of gun control, these types of laws have never been intended to prevent criminals from getting guns, or even to "make it harder for criminals to get guns".

These kinds of regulations are always; have always been about keeping law-abiding people from getting guns and making it harder for law-abiding people to get guns. And about making criminals out of law-abiding people who didn't follow these kinds of BS regulations because they were either too complicated, too confusing, too ambiguous, or too restrictive.

For some reason, there is an instinct in some people that, when they can't sufficiently smack down the people they want (criminals), they automatically look around for someone else to smack down (law-abiding citizens).

Really, think about it. Let's say your proposed rules are put in place (pick one). Assuming that they are enforced, how many criminals would be penalized (I mean over and above what they deserve for whatever crime they commit that caused them to be caught) verses how many law-abiding citizens that would be penalized for making some kind of mistake, or didn't recognize a phony LTCH card or something.

It is always easier to punish the whole group than to target those who break the rules. It is like putting an army company on restriction due to the actions of a few.

What this does is break morale thus no one tries anymore. Why push to be successful if it does not give you a chance to be elite? The Soviets did this and it destroyed their people.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

No matter what the "regulatory purpose", normal, law-abiding folks; those who want to build a life for themselves and their families (and thus, those who have something to loose); those people will always represent the lowest hanging fruit for the "regulators".

And thank god for the NRA, whose entire aim in these matters is nothing more than to raise these bits of lower hanging fruit just a little farther up in the tree.

 

[beararms1776]

the poll results do not show who voted for what

I’ve been brain storming some ideas about what if ANY gun laws could help ensure bad guys don’t get guns as easily AND keep our 2A rights protected. It’s a tricky topic as everybody on this forum knows. I read about guns used in crimes that can’t be traced back even when the serial numbers are in tact. Fact is a lot of firearms that are used in crimes are bought and sold privately which in my personal opinion that fact could possibly be altered. Now hear me out before the shouting matches start…

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/cente...search/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf
Reading this I came to some conclusions.

I think most of us would PREFER that guns we buy and sell do not cross hands with criminals and or prohibited persons? Am I wrong here? That seems to be why many folks REQUIRE LTCH and IN DL for their private sales, even tho it is not legally required. I don't have a problem presenting my IN DL or LTCH to a stranger who is selling me a gun, or vice versa. However this is different then what the gov wants to do, requiring back ground checks on all transfers IS a back door registration. I don't think madatory background checks for all is the way to go.

So I propose this idea, require buyers and sellers to know who they buy and sell to, which might mean recording data like DL # and or LTCH # solely for the purpose for the aid of law enforcement to figure out where the firearm found at the scene of the crime came from. I don’t mind showing my LTCH to strangers when purchasing a gun, I really don’t think its too much to ask. And I honestly think it will make it at least slightly harder for a criminal to purchase a firearm if the good guys continue following the law. Sure there are folks who would be bribed by a criminal to not require LTCH or IN DL.

If you don’t agree with the idea of requiring folks to simply verify that names on an LTCH and IN DL match and the person at least appears to be a good guy? How about this idea, allowing folks to run NICS checks themselves for free. As far as running the check thru the NICS I think whats the harm in opening that up to folks so that we as responsible gunowners can police ourselves?

A law that states a person should at least be sure the person they are selling/buying from/to should not be a criminal does seem reasonable, a law that requires back ground checks on all sales seems unreasonable to me in the sense that unless I can access NICS for free then thats crap. As dumb as it would be to have to run a NICS check on your coworker, or best friend, or son/daughter, it would make sense for the folks you just met on a classified web site or a stranger at a gunshow. We as gunowners should have no the fees to FFLs for this service of transfer but I understand them having to keep the records and log it in to their books is work. In this case making sure the stranger you just met isn't a felon should consist of a cursory check of their IN DL and LTCH. Yes criminals can forge these documents, Yes it is unenforceable in that ie criminals will still be able to buy guns from folks who choose not to follow the law. However the low bottom feeder criminals will have a harder time acquiring a gun to go rob their local liquor store or what have you. At least as gun owners we can say we did everything in our power to prevent bad guys from getting a gun. In this case everything in our power was looking at a pink slip and plastic driver's license.

When people say NO NEW LAWS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, that’s not really addressing the problem here with our gun crime. Again I’m trying to keep our firearm FREEDOMs intact. I’m not even talking about mass shootings (rifles in 2011 I think were used like 350+ times to murder, compared to like 11,000 handguns used to murder), I’m talking about street crime, I don’t consider the mass shooter to be your typical criminal as they seem to often be seemingly regular folks who are mentally unstable and fly under everyone’s radar until they plot their plans to kill as many as possible and one day snap and commit them.

I'm not saying that this is the answer, but I think as responsible gunowners it can't hurt to brain storm ideas that will both MITIGATE crime, ande nsure we have our freedom intact. I say mitigate because this will not stop the professional criminals from doing their thing but it would make it more difficult for some Chicago thug to drive 90 miles to a Indiana gunshow and walkaway with whatever guns his gang needs. That seems silly how easy it is for a criminal to obtain weapons, YES I know it is illegal for a felon to merely handle a firearm, but unless we are obligated to check them out ourselves it will be redicuously easy for any felon/bad guy to go to any gunshow (or use online classified ads) and just hand over cash for gun. America was founded on firearms no doubt, but I think we should at least TRY and come up with some good ideas to help law enforcement out.

Of course there are many other things I think should be opened up to help mitigate street crime, one of which would be to allow national LTCH laws or at least try and fix this patchwork of laws that don’t work and force me to pullover, unload my handgun and lock it up in the trunk when I enter Ohio… THAT should change for sure as well. But for this one thread I’m just proposing some ideas after I read some stats. Fact Sheet: Illegal gun trafficking arms criminals & youth « Gun Victims Action Council

Certainly there are things that need to go both ways. We could require to see LTCH and that could be a law, how about doing away with NFA
registration? Gun laws should go both ways, why is a suppressor an NFA item that I have to pass another background check on when I already submitted my fingerprints to the feds for obtaining my LTCH. But Im getting off topic here.

I'm willing to have UBC if they agree to remove all of these:

• National Firearms Act (1934)
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
• Gun Control Act of 1968 (1968)
• Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) (ruled unconstitutional as originally written; has been upheld repeatedly after minor edits were made by Congress)
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)

You think they would agree?

Maybe something here^^^^^^^^^^^^^^